Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Muhammad Yousuf Memon vs Karachi Stock Exchange (Guarantee)1995 CLC 183 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27
  withdrawal of suitcause of actionomission of reliefCode of Civil Procedurestock exchange membershipsuit dismissalres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit filed by the appellant against the Karachi Stock Exchange. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, and Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given that the appellant had previously withdrawn a suit involving similar subject matter without seeking leave to file a fresh one, and had omitted certain claims in the prior litigation. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision. The court held that a plaintiff cannot split claims arising from the same cause of action; failure to include the entire claim or seek leave to reserve it bars subsequent litigation for omitted reliefs under Order II, Rule 2. Furthermore, unconditional withdrawal of a suit without court permission precludes the institution of a fresh suit regarding the same subject matter under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3). The court clarified that issuing a subsequent legal notice does not constitute a fresh cause of action when the underlying dispute remains identical to the previous litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a suit without court permission preclude the filing of a fresh suit regarding the same subject matter?
  • Can a plaintiff who omits a claim or relief in a previous suit subsequently sue for that omitted relief under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the issuance of a subsequent legal notice create a fresh cause of action when the underlying dispute is identical to a previously withdrawn suit?
  • Is a suit barred under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if the plaintiff fails to include the whole of the claim to which they are entitled?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen And Other vs The StateK.LR. 1995 Shariat Cases 22 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 711 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydefective investigationHudood OrdinanceF.I.R. delayNisab
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by accused persons facing trial under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the alleged offence, thereby justifying continued detention. The Court observed significant flaws in the investigation, including an unexplained 20-hour delay in registering the F.I.R. despite the complainant's statement being recorded earlier, discrepancies in the recovery of stolen property, and the questionable application of Section 17(3) of the Ordinance given that the recovered amounts were below the statutory 'Nisab'. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds for guilt and that the case warranted further inquiry, the Court granted bail to the applicants. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation is conducted with gross negligence, unexplained procedural delays occur, and the evidence collected fails to substantiate the specific statutory charges, the court must lean in favor of granting bail for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in registering an F.I.R. after a statement is recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can bail be granted when the recovered property value is below the 'Nisab' required for an offence under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to establish reasonable grounds for the alleged offence sufficient to warrant the release of an accused on bail pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yahya and another vs Muhammad Ahmad1995 MLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Iqbal Hussain Khan1995 CLC 931 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer vs H.J. Behrana Fire Temple Parsi Trust1995 CLC 1725 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer vs Government of Sindh and others1995 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-24
  habeas corpusterritorial jurisdictioncircuit benchesarms ordinancebailable offencenon-bailable offenceillegal detentionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed in the Sindh High Court by Muhammad Umer seeking the production and release of his detained brother, Muhammad Qassim. During the proceedings, the police disclosed that the detenu had been shifted to District Jacobabad and subsequently arrested under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection that the High Court's Principal Seat at Karachi had lost territorial jurisdiction as the detenu was now held within the jurisdiction of the Sukkur Circuit Bench. The core legal questions addressed by the court concerned the extent of territorial jurisdiction among different benches of the High Court under Article 198 and Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with the High Court of Sindh Benches Rules, 1987, and whether an offence under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable or non-bailable. The court held that all benches of the High Court share co-extensive jurisdiction, that the Benches Rules do not restrict this overarching jurisdiction, and that offences under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 are non-bailable due to enhanced penalties. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions for medical treatment and liberty to approach the trial court for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of a Circuit Bench of a High Court is restricted exclusively to its assigned area under the High Court of Sindh Benches Rules, 1987, or is co-extensive with the Principal Seat?
  • Whether an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable or non-bailable?
  • What is the legal effect of the repeal of the Arms Act 1878 by Section 29 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 upon references to the repealed Act in prior amendments and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How should the High Court treat factual allegations made in a habeas corpus petition supported by an affidavit when the respondent police officials fail to file a counter-affidavit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer Khan vs Haji Muhammad Sultan Siddioui and others1995 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-28
  rented premisestentative rent orderstriking off defencesummary inquirytenancy agreementejectmentdefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises after his defence was struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was required to conduct a full-fledged inquiry into the rate of rent and the period of default before passing an order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the subsequent striking off of the defence under Section 16(2) was legally justified. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller is not required to hold a full-fledged inquiry but rather a summary one as deemed fit. The Court found that the Rent Controller correctly determined the rent based on the tenancy agreement, which stipulated an automatic increase after the initial term. The key principle laid down is that while a Rent Controller must pass a tentative rent order, this process does not necessitate a full-fledged trial or examination of witnesses, but rather a summary assessment based on available material, and non-compliance with such an order justifies striking off the defence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to hold a full-fledged inquiry before passing a tentative rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent order justify striking off the defence of a tenant under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a Rent Controller rely on the terms of a written tenancy agreement to determine the rate of rent for a tentative rent order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat Arain vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Home Secretary, Islamabad and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 606 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1995 MLD 1819 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad SAEED/Tenant vs Indico Paint Colour and Varnish1995 PLD Karachi 25 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-22
  Section 12(2) applicationconsent orderVakalatnamaauthority of counselrent evictionfraud and misrepresentationcompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by an appellant seeking to set aside a consent order passed in a rent appeal. The core legal question was whether a counsel, acting under a Vakalatnama that expressly authorized the withdrawal or compromise of the matter, could bind the client to a consent order, and whether such an order could be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court held that the application was meritless, finding no evidence of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation by the counsel. The Court emphasized that the Vakalatnama explicitly empowered the advocate to compromise or withdraw the appeal. Furthermore, the consent order provided the appellant with a tangible benefit by extending their possession of the premises for a specified period. Consequently, the Court ruled that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were not attracted, and the application was dismissed, upholding the validity of the original consent order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consent order be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Does a Vakalatnama containing an express clause to withdraw or compromise a case authorize an advocate to bind their client to a consent order?
  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained solely on allegations of negligence against an advocate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan Khan vs Ishtiaq AliK.L.R.1995 Civil Cases 320 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 349 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 14.46 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid And Another vs The State1997 K.L.R. Criminal Cases 706 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim alias Abdul Rahim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1350(1) · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiullah vs Mst. Mehrunnissa1995 MLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervez vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 776 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim vs Mst. Ghazala1995 CLC 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1995 MLD 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mureed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mujahid vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 462 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa Khawaja and anothers vs Haji Muhammad Umar1995 MLD 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa Khawaja And Another vs Haji Muhammad Umar1995 MLD 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mizan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 164 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehmood vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 392 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan, (Now Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs vs ShabratiK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 537 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs and others vs Shabarati1995 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24
  restoration of suitdismissal for non-prosecutionsufficient causecondonation of delaybona fide mistakecivil revisionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision was directed against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi West, affirming the Third Senior Civil Judge's dismissal of an application for restoration of a civil suit. The applicant's suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits, injunction, and cancellation of a decree was dismissed for non-prosecution. The applicant sought restoration alongside an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, explaining that he pursued a wrong date due to a bona fide mistake caused by two suits bearing the same number being scheduled on the same date. The trial court and appellate court refused restoration, citing lack of documentary proof and counsel negligence. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision, set aside the lower courts' orders, and restored the suit for trial on the merits. The Court held that a bona fide misapprehension regarding hearing dates constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to condone delays in restoration applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bona fide mistake or misapprehension regarding a hearing date constitutes sufficient cause for restoring a suit dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to condone delay in an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for restoration of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid alias Goga vs The State1997 MLD 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil and anothers vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 36 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2052 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 298 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Azizuddin1995 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Lt.Cdr. (Rtd.) M.A.H. Bokhari and anotherDefendants1995 CLC 676 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Is Haq vs Azizuddin1995 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan And 15 Other vs Post Master General And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 395 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 60 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Noor Muhammad and others1997 MLD 137 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry and others vs Civil Aviation Authority and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 421 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-17
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesservice mattersCivil Aviation Authorityinduction of armed forcesseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Air Traffic Control Officers, challenged the appointment of respondents 5-8 to Pay Group 9 by the Civil Aviation Authority, alleging that these appointments violated their seniority rights and specific Establishment Division instructions regarding the induction of Armed Forces personnel into civil service. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding service matters governed by internal regulations rather than statutory rules. The Court held that the regulations framed by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance 1982 do not possess statutory force, as the Government does not supervise or approve them. Consequently, service terms governed by such internal regulations cannot be enforced through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the induction of the respondents exceeded the 10% quota for Armed Forces personnel, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the quota applied exclusively to the Civil Aviation Authority rather than the civil service at large. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding service matters governed by internal regulations?
  • Do regulations framed by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance 1982 constitute statutory rules?
  • Can terms and conditions of service not governed by statutory rules be enforced through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inamul Haque vs The StateK. L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 389 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imranullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 66 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran Khan and another vs The State1997 MLD 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram and others vs Syed Muhammad Asif1995 CLC 561 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Rab Nawaz1997 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs Mir Muhammad and 8 others1995 MLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim And Others vs Mir Muhammad And 8 Other1995 MLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Umer Shah (Deceased) through His L.Rs. & OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Case 676 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 214 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Har vs Amir Bano1995 MLD 833 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad MuslimK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 671 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 328 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haji vs Amir Bano1995 MLD 833 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and others vs Fazal Ahmad1995 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez And Other vs Fazal AhmadK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 300 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq & Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan1997 P.C.L.T.R. 497 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mrs. Jamal Rashid and another1995 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim Jehlami vs Mst. Tashrif Khatoon and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1997 MLD 1900 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 532 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif And Another vs The State1995 MLD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdul Majid1995 CLC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Ikram vs WAPDA1995 PLC (C.S.) 29 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and anothers vs Khola Din1995 CLC 564 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1684 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Associated Trading Co. Ltd. and another1995 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08
  res judicatareview applicationarbitration proceedingsconstructive res judicatafinality of litigationrejection of plaintCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged an appellate order that dismissed a suit for recovery, which had been rejected at the trial stage due to the non-existence of the underlying agreement as determined in prior arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of res judicata could bar a subsequent suit based on an agreement already declared non-existent, particularly when the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 might not apply to arbitration matters. The Court dismissed the review application, holding that the previous dismissal was correct. The Court affirmed that the principles of res judicata are not exhaustive and are not confined solely to the statutory provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Instead, these principles have a broader, constructive application to proceedings where the Code might not be strictly applicable, serving the essential purpose of preventing endless litigation and ensuring finality in judicial determinations once a matter has been adjudicated by a competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Are the principles of res judicata confined strictly to the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the doctrine of res judicata be applied to proceedings where the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not specifically applicable?
  • Does a prior adjudication that an agreement does not exist bar a subsequent suit based on the same agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-05
  narcotics smugglingchain of custodybenefit of doubtsearch and seizureCustoms Actcriminal appealSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, for smuggling heroin. The core legal questions concerned the integrity of the chain of custody regarding the narcotics samples sent for chemical analysis and the prosecution's compliance with mandatory search procedures. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a secure link between the recovered material and the chemical analysis report, as the report did not match the quantity or description of the seized items. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by neglecting to associate respectable local witnesses for the search without proving that such efforts were made. Additionally, the Court noted significant discrepancies regarding the location of the search and seizure. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, resulting in his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate local witnesses during a search as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the recovery?
  • Is the prosecution's case fatally flawed if the chain of custody for narcotics samples sent to a chemical examiner is not established?
  • Can a search and seizure be considered valid if conducted at a customs office rather than the place of interception?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Sozar vs Yahya Ahmad Bawany and others1995 MLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Sozar vs Yahya Ahmad Bawany And Other1995 MLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Phull vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Chand Mian vs The State1997 MLD 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Syed Raheem and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Jumo and others1995 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Shaikh And Another vs Rashid Ahmed Butt And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 624 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs The Information Secretary, Government of Pakistan and Chairman, Pak Television Corporation and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 399 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Bhatti vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 293 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Mughulbaz vs The State1995 MLD 98 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mughul Baz vs The State1995 MLD 98 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mudabbir Ali Qureshi vs Mrs. Surriya Mudabbir and others1995 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst.) Qamar Loan & 5 Others vs Kashmirian (Pvt.) Limited, And 6 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Begum vs M/s. Long Life Builders1995 CLC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena and 5 others vs Syeda Fatima Bi1995 PLD Karachi 388 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-17
  ejectmentsublettingburden of proofcross-examinationwritten statementrent appealparting with possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two appeals filed against orders of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellants' ejectment applications against the respondent from two flats on the ground of subletting. The core legal question was whether the respondent had sublet the tenements to a third party without the landlord's written consent, and whether the landlord's unrebutted testimony on oath regarding subletting was sufficient to prove the case. The Sindh High Court held that where a material fact deposed in examination-in-chief by the landlord remains unchallenged and un-rebutted in cross-examination, and the tenant fails to step into the witness box or produce evidence, the allegation is deemed to have been admitted. The Court established the principle that a written statement cannot take the place of evidence, and failure to cross-examine on a core assertion amounts to acceptance of that fact. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the eviction of the respondent was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a written statement filed by a party take the place of substantive evidence without being supported by testimony on oath?
  • What is the legal effect when a material fact deposed by a landlord in examination-in-chief is left completely un-rebutted during cross-examination?
  • Is it mandatory for a landlord to state the exact name of a sublessee in the initial ejectment application when the identity of the occupant is initially unknown?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to enter the witness box to rebut allegations of subletting warrant an adverse inference against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tayyaba Khan vs Syeda Begum And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 38 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tabassum Qureshi vs The State1997 MLD 1866 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakila Bano vs Station House Officer, Police Station Model1995 PLD Karachi 555 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1288 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sebhahi And Another vs The State1995 MLD 583 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwari Begum vs Ata-Ur-RehmanK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 615 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina and 3 otherss vs National Logistic Cell, through Commander and 2 others1995 MLD 633 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina And 3 Others vs Messrs National Logistic Cell, Through Commander And 2 Other1995 MLD 633 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saboohi vs Ghulam Dastagir And Another1995 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruby Akhtar vs Capt. S.M. Aslam1995 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Zahir vs Muhammad Kamil Qureshi1995 CLC 468 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Afsar vs Messrs Kazi and Sons and another1995 CLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Farooq vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 628 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →